* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
LINGUIST List logo Eastern Michigan University Wayne State University *
* People & Organizations * Jobs * Calls & Conferences * Publications * Language Resources * Text & Computer Tools * Teaching & Learning * Mailing Lists * Search *
* *
LINGUIST List 17.3174

Mon Oct 30 2006

Qs: Sound-Change-Driven Grammatical Category Loss?

Editor for this issue: Kevin Burrows <kevinlinguistlist.org>

We'd like to remind readers that the responses to queries are usually best posted to the individual asking the question. That individual is then strongly encouraged to post a summary to the list. This policy was instituted to help control the huge volume of mail on LINGUIST; so we would appreciate your cooperating with it whenever it seems appropriate.

In addition to posting a summary, we'd like to remind people that it is usually a good idea to personally thank those individuals who have taken the trouble to respond to the query.

To post to LINGUIST, use our convenient web form at http://linguistlist.org/LL/posttolinguist.html.
        1.    Matthew Juge, Sound-Change-Driven Grammatical Category Loss?

Message 1: Sound-Change-Driven Grammatical Category Loss?
Date: 28-Oct-2006
From: Matthew Juge <mattjugetxstate.edu>
Subject: Sound-Change-Driven Grammatical Category Loss?

Dear Colleagues,

I am looking for (counter-)parallels of cases in which sound change leads
to the elimination of a grammatical category, as in the widely cited loss
of the Latin case system in Romance nouns. I am particularly interested in
examples where it turns out that the relevant sound changes do not actually
seem to fully explain the loss of the grammatical categories, as seems to
be the case for both the Latin future and the Latin passive, despite
earlier claims. I am not only interested in examples from languages with
extensive documentation but also in cases involving solid reconstructions
that show that the sound changes of language X ''shouldn't'' have led to
the complete elimination of a given grammatical category (whether it was
later replaced or not) but that language nonetheless lacks the inherited
version of the category. Naturally, I would especially appreciate any
information on other factors known or believed to have contributed to the
loss of such categories.

Thanks in advance.
Matt Juge

Linguistic Field(s): Historical Linguistics

Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue

Please report any bad links or misclassified data

LINGUIST Homepage | Read LINGUIST | Contact us

NSF Logo

While the LINGUIST List makes every effort to ensure the linguistic relevance of sites listed
on its pages, it cannot vouch for their contents.